From G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man
"[T]he next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. ... [T]he popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. ... Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith."
HT: Bob Prokop
11 comments:
I think you might want to follow up on your Dunning Kruger effect post with one on psychological projection. The above criticism reads like a classic case of what I read too often in the comments section of this site, and the vast majority seems to come from the peanut gallery of regular theist commenters. I am curious if you are aware of that fact.
Well, I do think theists over here have a tendency to be more trigger-happy in response to what people perceive as a New Atheist mentality, when the responses are actually more serious than that.
On the other hand, over at Debunking Christianity, when I start trying to raise issues for the kinds of stuff that goes on over there, everyone assumes I've given a full-dress defense of Christianity and attacks me for trying to do something I wasn't trying to do in the first place.
Tony's track record of correctly interpreting what he reads leaves a lot to be desired.
Take a look at some of the people who the resident theists are 'trigger happy' against, and the reaction becomes justified. Meanwhile, Victor's quite sincerely above the fray and respectful, and they treat him like dirt at DC. Illiterate heckling, sulks, perversity and petty criticism sums it up.
The problem seems to be that some atheists are so paranoid about remaining cohesive and unified that many of them seem reluctant to engage in any criticism of visible representatives, unless it's over something other than atheism. So much for the free thinking.
Okay, I thought you were referring to this site. I have to confess that it is the quality of some of the atheist commenters here who occasionally visit that I read here as often as I do -- I'd hate to see them lose interest entirely because they can't find their counterparts in the usual coterie.
Tony,
Before you consign G.K.Chesterton to any "peanut gallery", might I suggest you read the book the passage is quoted from? Chesterton was beyond brilliant. There's not a man alive who could lay a glove on him.
Some of the atheist commenters here are absolutely hilarious to see in action. I especially enjoy the gnu ones who have been intellectually ass-whupped so many times, they're gun-shy and are reduced to passive aggressive comments and cheerleading.
As usual, the complaints here stem from a common source: the inability for some Gnus to take what they imagine themselves capable of dishing out.
And before it's noted that I'm engaging in some petty criticism, I'll air my defense - I work what what is given. When there's substantial intellectual discourse had, I discuss. If barbs go out, I throw barbs. And if someone says 'Dawkins didn't write that!' for days, despite Dawkins obviously having done so - or if someone else plagiarizes and lies in their responses in an attempt to look intelligent - well, I ignore or I mock. I think most of the theists here follow a similar code.
Also,
"Gnu cheerleader vastly prefers reading arguments of atheists, seeing insults of theists to seeing arguments of theists, insults of atheists. In other news, sky still blue, water still wet."
More of the joys of "freethinking".
Crude
"And if someone says 'Dawkins didn't write that!' for days, despite Dawkins obviously having done so - or if someone else plagiarizes and lies in their responses in an attempt to look intelligent - well, I ignore or I mock. I think most of the theists here follow a similar code."
Thanks for never letting me forget, Crude. One thing though, I immediately apologized for my silliness.
It seems even the mightiest of Thomist philosophers is not averse to the odd period of deliberate plagiarism. You might wish to remind readers of Prof Feser's recent exercise in this OP, HERE.
The second sentence into the OP re [card:hinge]. I noted in my commentary:
"They are called cardinal (Latin: cardo, hinge) virtues because they are hinges on which all moral virtues depend. These are also called moral (Latin: mores, fixed)" From: HERE
AND
"They are so called because they are traditionally regarded as the “hinge” (cardo) on which the rest of morality turns." From: Dr Feser's OP, second sentence.
Compare:
They are called cardinal (Latin: cardo, hinge) virtues because they are hinges on which all moral virtues depend.
They are so called because they are traditionally regarded as the “hinge” (cardo) on which the rest of morality turns.
I also noted in commentary:
"They are called cardinal (Latin: cardo, hinge) virtues because they are hinges on which all moral virtues depend. These are also called moral (Latin: mores, fixed)" From: HERE
NOTE: "All copies of Second Exodus materials must include my name, Marty Barrack, wherever it appears in the original, and may not be altered. They must also carry my copyright notice: “Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Martin K. Barrack, www.secondexodus.com. All rights reserved.”
See HERE
I could not find the required citation and attribution related to this material in Dr Feser's OP.
One could argue this is a small transgression of little consequence. But this sentence is no ordinary bit of information borrowed without attribution buried within the body of the treatise. This sentence is a framing statement. It is the core statement around which the framework of the OP on cardinal virtues is constructed. It defines Professor Feser's argument. It would seem fair and appropriate that attribution, be it a belated one, would be the honourable thing to do. Nothing as yet.
Thanks for never letting me forget, Crude. One thing though, I immediately apologized for my silliness.
What a surprise: when you're caught utterly red-handed, you admit to it. It wasn't the first time you were caught, and the number of times you've done it and it's slipped by is anyone's guess. If I were very concerned about this, I'd go back and google more of your exchanges, see how many more times the event came up.
But, there's no need. You were exposed as a liar and a plagiarist. More than that, it was lying and plagiarism in a situation where you were called to explain something you were pontificating about in your own words. You proved you didn't know a damn thing. You're an ignoramus - and everyone, at this point, knows it. Not even atheists rally to your defense, because you're an embarrassment to them, and they really wish you'd just not be associated with them.
And so I return to my systematic ignoring of you, as now so many people do. You've earned it. Other cultists of Gnu are equally lame, but you went and made yourself even worse of a specimen than guys like kilo papa. Good job.
So. Two rules for plagiarism. One for the ordinary folk. A very different one for the Thomist philosopher.
" ... and the number of times you've done it and it's slipped by is anyone's guess."
Now that we know Professor Feser is happy to plagiarise, you are probably correct, and in the heady fawning idolatry of the sycophants that sit at Feser's feet, what plagiarism has slipped through is anyone's guess.
Professor Feser is a plagiarist. Straight and simple.
Re Dr Feser and plagiarism. Not correct.
Egg all over my face.
Post a Comment